Its not quite the same, but during the Commonwealth Heads of State conference there was a agenda for partners called 'the Wives Programme" It is now called The Spouses Programme. Helen Clark's husband was often the only male attendee by her use to say that the programme was often a lot more interesting than the official one

It's kind of like the question of what the U.S. president's spouse would be called if the president were female.

Currently (and throughout history), we have President and First Lady.

First Man? First Husband? First Lord? (lol I don't think so, but it's the male equivalent of Lady!)

Its not quite the same, but during the Commonwealth Heads of State conference there was a agenda for partners called 'the Wives Programme" It is now called The Spouses Programme. Helen Clark's husband was often the only male attendee by her use to say that the programme was often a lot more interesting than the official one

It's kind of like the question of what the U.S. president's spouse would be called if the president were female.

Currently (and throughout history), we have President and First Lady.

First Man? First Husband? First Lord? (lol I don't think so, but it's the male equivalent of Lady!)

In the Netherlands i sometimes wonder if they will go back to the old traditions when we get a king again, and call his wife queen, or if this will be taken as an oportunity to modernize the wording, and let her stay a princess.

As a background, the Netherlands has had 3 consecutive queens, and no king since 1890. In the last 120 years there have been enough changes in the gender roles, ti justifify completele equalizing the rank of king and queen.

Considering the historical and social derivation of those words, I would consider saying "King = #1, whatever the gender" kind of like saying "women can't, by definition, be #1, so if a woman takes top spot, she must give up her femininity" (sort of like Hatshepsut adopting a Pharonic beard).

Well, given that I was referencing a dragon in a children's fantasy series--you actually have a good point. Reminds me of another children's series (I have very high intellectual standards for my reading matter)--The Royal Diaries. There's one called "Kristina, the Girl King." I believe she was the heir to the Swedish throne in the 1800's, and once her father was resigned to the fact that she indeed would be the ruler someday, he declared that she wouldn't be "Queen," she would be "King." Somehow I don't think he meant that literally would be her title, but the idea was that she would be educated "like a king" instead of "like a marriage-bait princess." But notice there's no, "like a ruler of either gender" option.

It is an interesting point. And while it wouldn't take all that much to convice me of a female ruler taking the title of "King", it would have to be a dingdangity good writer to convince me that her male consort was OK with the title of "Queen", just saying

Hmmm... *files this away for nanowrimo*...

Well, the duties of the Queeen of the Dragons in the Enchanted Forest series by Patricia Wrede were very different from those of the King of the Dragons. And the previous Queen had been male - the job was "vacant" at the time of one of the books (new King due to a competition after the office became vacant). But the dragons weren't confused about their gender - they just used the term that the humans would understand.

Considering the historical and social derivation of those words, I would consider saying "King = #1, whatever the gender" kind of like saying "women can't, by definition, be #1, so if a woman takes top spot, she must give up her femininity" (sort of like Hatshepsut adopting a Pharonic beard).

Well, given that I was referencing a dragon in a children's fantasy series--you actually have a good point. Reminds me of another children's series (I have very high intellectual standards for my reading matter)--The Royal Diaries. There's one called "Kristina, the Girl King." I believe she was the heir to the Swedish throne in the 1800's, and once her father was resigned to the fact that she indeed would be the ruler someday, he declared that she wouldn't be "Queen," she would be "King." Somehow I don't think he meant that literally would be her title, but the idea was that she would be educated "like a king" instead of "like a marriage-bait princess." But notice there's no, "like a ruler of either gender" option.

It is an interesting point. And while it wouldn't take all that much to convice me of a female ruler taking the title of "King", it would have to be a dingdangity good writer to convince me that her male consort was OK with the title of "Queen", just saying

Hmmm... *files this away for nanowrimo*...

Well, the duties of the Queeen of the Dragons in the Enchanted Forest series by Patricia Wrede were very different from those of the King of the Dragons. And the previous Queen had been male - the job was "vacant" at the time of one of the books (new King due to a competition after the office became vacant). But the dragons weren't confused about their gender - they just used the term that the humans would understand.

Its not quite the same, but during the Commonwealth Heads of State conference there was a agenda for partners called 'the Wives Programme" It is now called The Spouses Programme. Helen Clark's husband was often the only male attendee by her use to say that the programme was often a lot more interesting than the official one

It's kind of like the question of what the U.S. president's spouse would be called if the president were female.

Currently (and throughout history), we have President and First Lady.

First Man? First Husband? First Lord? (lol I don't think so, but it's the male equivalent of Lady!)

Oh, good heavens no, the "title" wouldn't be "First Lord" because the "Lady" in "First Lady" is NOT the same as the title "Lady" in Europe. Wasn't it George Washington who specifically said there would be no "noble" titles in United States?

According to Wikipedia, "The title "First Lady" originated in the United States[citation needed] in 1849, when United States President Zachary Taylor called Dolley Madison "First Lady" at her state funeral while reciting a eulogy written by himself.[4] In the early days of the United States, there was no generally accepted title for the wife of the President. Many early first ladies expressed their own preference for how they were addressed, including the use of such titles as "Lady," "Mrs. President," "Mrs. Presidentress" (in the case of Julia Tyler) and "Queen of the White House."[5]"

I believe that untill today William although royal was also a commoner as you have to be a pier of the relm basically have a tital such as Duke, Barron or Marquess (sorry about spellings) or be the reigning monarch to not be a commoner. Prince doesn't count - i guess tradintionally a reigning monarch or titled person holds lands (castles, manors) in their own right whereas a Prince doesn't. just something that was on the evening news the other day.

What??? I always thought that not only does the title "Prince" *count* (hey, that's kind of a title-pun, there, hee hee) but it was "above" Duke, Earl, etc.

Isn't the phrase "although royal was also a commoner" an oxymoron? If you're royal, you're not a commoner, right?

Its not quite the same, but during the Commonwealth Heads of State conference there was a agenda for partners called 'the Wives Programme" It is now called The Spouses Programme. Helen Clark's husband was often the only male attendee by her use to say that the programme was often a lot more interesting than the official one

It's kind of like the question of what the U.S. president's spouse would be called if the president were female.

Currently (and throughout history), we have President and First Lady.

First Man? First Husband? First Lord? (lol I don't think so, but it's the male equivalent of Lady!)

Oh, good heavens no, the "title" wouldn't be "First Lord" because the "Lady" in "First Lady" is NOT the same as the title "Lady" in Europe. Wasn't it George Washington who specifically said there would be no "noble" titles in United States?

According to Wikipedia, "The title "First Lady" originated in the United States[citation needed] in 1849, when United States President Zachary Taylor called Dolley Madison "First Lady" at her state funeral while reciting a eulogy written by himself.[4] In the early days of the United States, there was no generally accepted title for the wife of the President. Many early first ladies expressed their own preference for how they were addressed, including the use of such titles as "Lady," "Mrs. President," "Mrs. Presidentress" (in the case of Julia Tyler) and "Queen of the White House."[5]"

Interesting! I wonder which one wanted the title of "Queen of the White House"? That would kind of contradict George Washington's statement!

I believe that untill today William although royal was also a commoner as you have to be a pier of the relm basically have a tital such as Duke, Barron or Marquess (sorry about spellings) or be the reigning monarch to not be a commoner. Prince doesn't count - i guess tradintionally a reigning monarch or titled person holds lands (castles, manors) in their own right whereas a Prince doesn't. just something that was on the evening news the other day.

What??? I always thought that not only does the title "Prince" *count* (hey, that's kind of a title-pun, there, hee hee) but it was "above" Duke, Earl, etc.

Isn't the phrase "although royal was also a commoner" an oxymoron? If you're royal, you're not a commoner, right?

It doesn't make any sense to me, either.

Perhaps what the writer was trying to say was that his mother was a commoner, that's all I can think of. Basically - if your father is a prince or king, you are royal. An example - the Earl and Countess of Wessex prefer that their children not be titled Prince/Princess, only Lord and Lady. That's fine but it doesn't make them commoners.

In the Netherlands i sometimes wonder if they will go back to the old traditions when we get a king again, and call his wife queen, or if this will be taken as an oportunity to modernize the wording, and let her stay a princess.

As a background, the Netherlands has had 3 consecutive queens, and no king since 1890. In the last 120 years there have been enough changes in the gender roles, ti justifify completele equalizing the rank of king and queen.

quoting myself.

I did not know this was already a serious political issue in the Netherlands, but yesterday I heard on the radio that the cabinet has decided she will be queen.